Author
Topic: Opposition research (Read 2053 times)

Although "opposition research" in America is hardly a new thing--it goes back at least to 1824 (almost 200 years)--it was on the wane prior to Bill Clinton. And nowadays it is entirely ubiquitous.

To me, what this essentially says is this: "I will not even attempt to make myself liked by a majority of the voting public. Rather, I will just try to make most voters hate my opponent even more than they hate me."

To say that this is a cynical ploy is an enormous understatement, it seems to me.

Well, I was born in 1948; and I really did not see much of it, prior to 1992 (and the Clinton campaign).

It seemed to ramp up as a result of Reagan's popularity as the left tried the indirect method of picking off those around him. The Clinton Crime Syndicate brought it to a high art form, although in all fairness it seems Lee Atwater was pretty adept at it.

Opposition research wasn't much discussed, not to the extent it's been since Bill Clinton, but it was there.

Perhaps you are correct.

But I deeply despise the very idea of professional politicians--who are willing to do just about anything in order to get elected--and who therefore wish to denigrate their respective opponents. (If plumbers, electricians, and carpenters ran for office--including even high office--they would have no reason to consider it a major downturn in their respective careers if they lost; and would therefore be less likely, I think, to play dirty. This is just another reason, in my opinion, to seriously desire the total destruction of The Political Class.)